Coordinate representation of the momentum operator

MSLion
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
The position operator in coordinate representation is:
Xab=aδ(a-b)
this is diagonal as expected

The momentum operator turns out to look like
Pab=-ih∂aδ(a-b)

Now, this is not supposed to be diagonal because it does not commute with X.
However it looks pretty diagonal to me.

What am I missing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The momentum operator is not what you wrote here. It is equal to:
P_{ab} = e^{i(a-b)}
with some scaling factors.
 
haael said:
The momentum operator is not what you wrote here. It is equal to:
P_{ab} = e^{i(a-b)}
with some scaling factors.

What exactly are you saying?

Anyone familiar with quantum mechanics in dirac notation?
 
MSLion said:
The position operator in coordinate representation is:
Xab=aδ(a-b)
this is diagonal as expected

The momentum operator turns out to look like
Pab=-ih∂aδ(a-b)

Now, this is not supposed to be diagonal because it does not commute with X.
However it looks pretty diagonal to me.

What am I missing?

I don't see how it looks diagonal. For something to be diagonal, it needs to be multiplied by a delta function. An example of a diagonal matrix is:

Oab=δ(a-b) f(a,b)

for arbitrary function f(a,b).

The delta function is essentially the identity matrix, and f(a,b) are the diagonal components.
 
From what I understood on distributions the support of the derivative of a distribution is contained within the support of the original distribution.

Therefore ∂aδ(a-b) should be zero wherever δ(a-b) is.
 
MSLion said:
From what I understood on distributions the support of the derivative of a distribution is contained within the support of the original distribution.

Therefore ∂aδ(a-b) should be zero wherever δ(a-b) is.

Distributions are supported on functions ##f(a)##, not on the domain of the functions themselves. Given a function ##f(a)##, we have ##\delta[f]=f(0)## and ## \delta'[f]=f'(0)##. These are generally not equal. The same argument can be made for delta functions which are shifted away from the origin.

##\delta'## is as independent of ##\delta## as an ordinary function is from its derivative. There's no unitary operator that can map one to another (for all test functions ##f##).
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...
Back
Top